Transferring house into child's name

Derbyshire_Phoenix

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

But why do you consider it reasonable that your parents should NOT pay for their own care, when they clearly have the money to do so?

There's no moral reason why well-off people, who own their own homes, should leave that money to their children rather than paying for their own care.

I would've bet the house that someone would come up with this one *sigh*

OK, here goes

1. Owning your own home does not necessarily make anyone well off. Many homeowners would happily settle for 'comfortable'.

2. If someone pays, via their council tax, for other peoples care, why should they not expect other people to pay for theirs, when the time comes?

3. Is it morally right that I pay the costs of other peoples stay in hospital when they have children when they are equally able to afford it themselves? What about IVF treatment? Should I pay for surgery, drugs, therapy etc for self inflicted conditions caused by say, smoking, obesity, use of illicit drugs? Is that morally right? What about the morality of my paying for people who spend a lifetime on welfare benefits because it beats working for a living and it suits the government to have a grateful and dependent electorate? Are the cradle to grave welfare claimants moral? Are the government? I think not but they're rhetorical question of course. I don't really object to paying for these things, I was just pointing out the absurd consequences of MarkyMarks argument. Well, no actually I do object to paying for some of them, I just accept I have s*d all choice in the matter.

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Don't rip of the rest of us taxpayers for your own benefit, please!

Actually, I'm a taxpayer too, as were my parents and I earn just enough not to claim any kind of benefit so I think I know enough about being treated like Gordon Browns' personal cash cow.

What you're saying in effect Marky Mark is that rather than leave their hard earned to their children, people should leave it all to the government. Do you really not think we give them enough as it is?

Best wishes

Sarah

MarkyMarkD

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that people who have money to pay for their own care, should pay for it. End of story.

It's irrelevant if other people (who don't have any money) get their care paid for. It's a shame that other people (who've had money and p*ssed it away) get their care paid for, but as they don't have any money now there's no alternative in a civilised society than for taxpayers to fund this care.

We have s*d all choice in what the government choose to fund. That's a fact of life, as you validly point out. And, given that is the case, we have to pay the amount the government consider we should pay towards such things, whether by paying our taxes in the first place or by direct charging for things like residential care for the elderly.

Your argument that owning your own home doesn't make you well off is balderdash. What you mean is that owning your own home doesn't make you have substantial excess income - which is irrelevant in this case. Putting a charge against your property for when you die has no impact on your standard of living whilst in a residential care home. The only persons to suffer from this are the elderly person's relatives who lose out on an inheritance. Poor them.

I am personally VERY likely to lose out financially from this legislation, so I am not speaking as an uninformed observer but as an interested party. But despite that, I don't see why those who jump through a number of legal hoops should pay less than those who have similar assets but don't jump through those hoops. That is the logical consequence of what you are suggesting is right - that the uninformed elderly should pay, whilst those with clever children and lawyers should not.

And the idea that the government take money away from "us" for their own devices is a bit ridiculous - the government take money away from "us" to pay for things that benefit someone in society.

saintalan

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

No, that's not what I'm saying at all....
I am personally VERY likely to lose out financially from this legislation, so I am not speaking as an uninformed observer but as an interested party. But despite that, I don't see why those who jump through a number of legal hoops should pay less than those who have similar assets but don't jump through those hoops. That is the logical consequence of what you are suggesting is right - that the uninformed elderly should pay, whilst those with clever children and lawyers should not...

MarkyMarkD I can see your sentiment, but I think it all comes down as to why people are in care. If it's "Ah I'm fed up living on my own and want some company and anyway I may end up in a care home so why not give my money to the kids" then as I have said maybe paying and being means tested is OK. On the other hand I would say that the majority of folk in care homes are there because they need care and the majority of that care is for a health need and then legally they have a right to free care under the NHS Act, but and the big BUT is that that funded care is difficult to get and can vary by different Regional Health Authorities.

This is not why this thread was started specifically but it is not a straightforward issue.

Cheers

Alan

saintalan

Derbyshire_Phoenix wrote: »

...
Just one question please, what is the difference between tenants in common and joint ownership, as they sound very similar?...

Sarah Hi, I'm not an expert but basically Joint Ownership is what most couples have where they do NOT own half each but as an entity they own the whole property and on death the property passes to the other joint owner.

Tenants-in-Common is where they each own a share which they can technically sell and, of course, will their share as they wish.

However, this is where it can get nasty as LA's now claim they can force a Joint Ownership in to a Tenancy-in-common and then force the sale of the concerned share although this would not tend to be between couples but where for example you were a joint owner. The 'speculator' who then buys the share can force a sale! It's a messy business!!

Anyway we are all learning a lot from your starter thread.

Good Luck.

Alan

MarkyMarkD

saintalan wrote: »

MarkyMarkD I can see your sentiment, but I think it all comes down as to why people are in care. If it's "Ah I'm fed up living on my own and want some company and anyway I may end up in a care home so why not give my money to the kids" then as I have said maybe paying and being means tested is OK. On the other hand I would say that the majority of folk in care homes are there because they need care and the majority of that care is for a health need and then legally they have a right to free care under the NHS Act, but and the big BUT is that that funded care is difficult to get and can vary by different Regional Health Authorities.

Your point is a very interesting one. The fact of the matter is that when the NHS was established, despite all the "cradle to grave" political claptrap spouted, the reality was that it didn't provide very much to anyone. It was fairly academic whether the care continued "to the grave" as most people didn't survive very long after being admitted to hospital in their later years.

It's only due to the developments in medical science that we are now in the happy situation where people can recover from what were previously terminal illnesses, and survive for maybe tens of years in a state of relatively poor, but maintainable, health. The NHS was never intended to provide this sort of ongoing care for people irrespective of whether the cause was a health need or "mere old age". And I don't believe that there is really a dividing line between the two. Old age is linked to deteriorating bodily function and that may, or may not, be termed medical need.

One opinion is that the government should bite the bullet and clarify the fact that ongoing care will NOT be provided to the elderly free of charge, other than on a means-tested basis. NHS hospitals should limit the duration of treatment to a specific period (and no, I don't know what that period is) with longer-term treatment handled in specific facilities which are chargeable on a means-tested basis.

The NHS bill has spiralled out of all proportion during the present Government's term in office, and there's no reason why it should continue to do so.

Probably not a popular viewpoint, but one which warrants some consideration/discussion, don't you think?

saintalan

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Your point is a very interesting one. ...

Thank you, yours too, we have gone a bit off Sarah's topic but the great thing about this forum is the breadth of viewpoint. We shouldn't always expect what we want to hear. If nothing else, those following this thread will realise that Sarah's point has many sides to it, and those considering it, not only need advice, opinion and research but they should seriously look at their own desired outcome before following any advice.

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

... The NHS was never intended to provide this sort of ongoing care for people irrespective of whether the cause was a health need or "mere old age". ...

Intention or not the NHS Act is Law. The fact they have no money does not exonerate them. But you are right they should sort it out, whoever we vote for!

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

...NHS hospitals should limit the duration of treatment to a specific period (and no, ...

This is a good point, BUT an important fact that many fall down on (my family included) is that we all fall for the plea of the hospital that they must go home or elsewhere. If you take control you will have a life long battle. Let them and Social Services sort it out. Of course they are dealing with our loved ones so they know we will weaken. Stand your ground, hard as it may be at the time, you and those you care for will be better served in the long run.

Sarah I wish somebody would come up with some innovative answers to your question. I am sure there are some just be careful and consider you and your families perspective.

You miust have wished you never asked:)

Alan

Derbyshire_Phoenix

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that people who have money to pay for their own care, should pay for it. End of story.

No, you're saying *some* people should. You're being selective. If you were arguing that everyone who had the money to pay for their own care should do so, for example in the case of maternity care, I might be prepared to take you seriously.

Sarah

Derbyshire_Phoenix

saintalan wrote: »

You miust have wished you never asked:)

Alan

lol, not at all Alan. Like you say, it's a complex issue and there are no simple solutions. Thanks too for clarifying the joint ownership/tenants in common thing (well as much as it's possible to...). Once I've taken legal advice I'll report back.

Thanks again for all your help

Best wishes

Sarah

MarkyMarkD

Derbyshire_Phoenix wrote: »

No, you're saying *some* people should. You're being selective. If you were arguing that everyone who had the money to pay for their own care should do so, for example in the case of maternity care, I might be prepared to take you seriously.

Sarah

Well, to be pedantic I'm saying that *everyone* should pay for their care in old age. But I can see why you say that is saying that *some* people should pay for *a certain element of their own care*.

I don't have a problem with a system where people pay for their own medical treatment full stop, subject to some sort of system to protect those without means. Does that mean you'll take my view seriously?

I do personally have private medical insurance for my family, through my employer's scheme.

joe90_jnr

Wig wrote: »

Just looking at these two quotes, reminded me of my parents. They had an indy finance advisor, who told them to go "tennants in common" route. He wanted something like £3,000 to do it for them. They asked their solicitor, who did it for them for a few hundred quid!

Tenants in common can be done 'free' at the Land registry - there is a form to comlete and that is it (between husband and wife)

The tenants in common is the best route to look into and as someone said earlier you get the 50% left to you upon death up to 300k - the rest goes to the surviver.

Im not expert like everyone else - but some people will rip you off and not tell you a simple free transfer route
Enjoy!